Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4696
THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH (COURT-I), CHANDIGARH
Khetrabasi Biswal, Judicial Member, Shishir Agarwal, Technical Member
PARDEEP KUMAR GOEL – Appellant
Versus
Mohit Chawla Resolution Professional – Respondent
I.A. (I.B.C) 924 (CH)2025 | CP (IB) No. 248/Chd/Chd/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aalok Jagga, Sahil Lohan
For the Respondents: Atul V Sood, Rohan Sood, Arora Viswas Kumar, Hanima Grewal
An "Other Creditor" lacks the locus standi to challenge a Resolution Plan based on the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors or general non-compliance with the Code, unless their own specific legal rights are directly affected.
Headnote:(A) Locus Standi - Other Creditor - An "Other Creditor" who is not a member of the Committee of Creditors cannot challenge a Resolution Plan on grounds that do not arise from their own admitted claim or affect a specific legal right vested in them under the Code. (Para 11, 17)
(B) Commercial Wisdom - Committee of Creditors - The commercial wisdom of the CoC is non-justiciable; an individual stakeholder cannot reopen the resolution process to challenge the collective commercial decisions of the CoC. (Para 15, 16, 17)
(C) Doctrine of "Person Aggrieved" - Scope of Challenge - The right of an aggrieved person to maintain proceedings applies where legal rights are directly affected and does not confer an unrestricted right to challenge every procedural or commercial aspect of the CIRP. (Para 18)
Issues: Whether an application filed by a party categorized as an "Other Creditor" to challenge a Resolution Plan approved by the CoC is maintainable in law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the cirp and the applicant's classification as an other creditor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the locus standi of an other creditor to challenge a resolution plan. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. determination of the core legal issue: maintainability of the application by an other creditor. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of the limited rights of other creditors compared to the coc's commercial wisdom. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. non-justiciability of coc's commercial wisdom and the limited scope of 'person aggrieved'. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of the application due to lack of maintainability. (Para 20 , 21) |
Present:
For the Applicant: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate Mr. Sahil Lohan, Advocate
For the RP/Respondent: Mr. Atul V Sood, Advocate Mr. Rohan Sood, Advocate
Mr. Arora Viswas Kumar For the SRA: Ms. Hanima Grewal
ORDER
1. The present Application has been filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goyal, (hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) who presently stands classified as an "Other Creditor" of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), for seeking rejection of the Resolution Plan filed in IA (I.B.C)(Plan) 6 of 2024 submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant i.e Consortium of M/s Credo Assets Private Limited and Mr. Anil Parkash Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2”) and approved by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") on the ground that the same is allegedly not in conformity with the provisions of the Code. Besides seeking rejection of the Resolution Plan, the Applicant has also sought various consequential directions, including a declaration that the Resolution Plan is vitiated by non-compliance with Sections 29A and 30(2) of the Code.
Brief Background of the Case:
2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") of the Corporate Debtor was commenced pursuant to the order passed by this Adjudicating Authority dated 27.02.2023. During the CIRP, claims submitted by various stakeholders were collated and verified by the Resolution Professional, following which the CoC was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Code. Thereafter, pursuant to the process undertaken under the CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Plan submitted by the Respondent No.2 was approved by the CoC in its commercial wisdom with the requisite voting share. Consequent thereto, the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 30(6) of the Code seeking approval of the Resolution Plan, which is presently pending consideration before this Adjudicating Authority.
3. It is pertinent to note that prior to the filing of the present Application, the status of the Applicant had already been adjudicated by this Adjudicating Authority. Vide common order dated 17.04.2026 passed in IA Nos. 694 of 2024 and 696 of 2024, this Adjudicating Authority declined the Applicant's claim for recognition as a Financial Creditor and held that the Applicant would stand classified as an "Other Creditor". The Applicant has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. According to the Applicant, notwithstanding such classification, it continues to remain a creditor and stakeholder of the Corporate Debtor and is, therefore, entitled to question the legality of the Resolution Plan.
4. After institution of the present proceedings, this Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 03.06.2026, considered it appropriate to first examine the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Application before entering into the merits of the challenge raised against the Resolution Plan. Accordingly, arguments were confined to the issue of maintainability only. Subseque
